WBC Tonight: Korea v. Venezuela
by andromache on Mar 21, 2009 8:08 PM EDT
29 comments
Game time: 9:00 PM ET
Probable Pitchers: Suk-Min Yoon (Korea) and Carlos Silva (Venezuela)
While Korea's pitching has been superb against many of its Classic foes, we've also seen it collapse against Japan in the first round. Venezuela's lineup is far more fearsome that Japan's, and sports an impressive amount of power. I suspect that if things start to go downhill, they'll fall apart quickly for Korea's young starter. Korea's strength's have always been touted as pitching and defense, so I think that if Yoon can keep it in the park, he could keep the score low. On the other side, Carlos Silva has been good in the classic, but against such hard hitting foes as Italy and the Netherlands. No offense to those squads, but I don't think it would take much for the Koreans to eke out a few runs here and there - a single here, a stolen base there.
Realistically though, I doubt small ball will be enough against Venezuela. I think Venezuela'll keep on hitting, and move on to the final game.
Thursday's Game:
Pool 1 - Japan 6 Korea 2
Japan really hit Korea on Thursday to take the top seed in Pool 1, with 15 hits scoring their 6 runs. Korea wasn't helped by uncharacteristically sloppy defense, allowing two unearned runs, and committing three errors - 2 of them by first baseman Tae-Kyun Kim. In any case, I'd kind of like to not see these two teams in the final game - I'm a little sick of this matchup. Then again, I'm also sort of tired of US v. Venezuela. Any other permutations are fine with me.
0 recs |
29 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Korea up big early
5-0 in the first. Is this game already over?
by dougdirt on Mar 21, 2009 9:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Realistically though, I doubt small ball will be enough against Venezuela. I think Venezuela’ll keep on hitting, and move on to the final game.
Yikes. 10-1 Korea in the 7th.
by Brian B on Mar 21, 2009 11:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Haha, I know. It's pretty much been given though that whatever I say concerning the WBC
will be dead wrong. It’s sort of like the rest of my life that way.
Everybody's a jerk. You. Me. This jerk.
by andromache on Mar 22, 2009 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're talking about playing a shorter season
in WBC years.
That would screw up the stats…
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
by BubbaFan on Mar 21, 2009 11:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather go back to the 154-game season, actually.
It would allow us to more easily separate the “juiced ball” and “juiced players” era. And it would be a solid marketing strategy in that it would turn the page in such a profound way that the comparable SS HR record would suddenly be held again by Babe Ruth. The Babe is a much better symbol for MLB to build around than Barry & The Juicers…whom I believe are opening for Murph and the Magictones in the Ramada Room from Tuesday through Thursday. Tickets still available.
But is there a good reason that the WBC and spring training overlap in this way? We have plenty of equatorial stadiums and domed facilities around the globe that it could be held any time of year. It could have been held a month earlier, right?
It's all fun and games until someone gets herpes. - Fox 4 News
by PeteyHendrix on Mar 22, 2009 4:34 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The players wouldn't like it
They said that players have little time with their families as it is, and more time away wouldn’t go over well.
That’s why they suggested shortening the regular season…but only during WBC years. So one of out of four years would be shorter than usual.
Why not a shorter season every year? The revenue hit, obviously.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
by BubbaFan on Mar 22, 2009 7:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i want a 150 game season all the time
screw the stats and the revenue. the season is too long, and i hate watching the world series in november. during non wbc years, they could give a few more off days in the season.
by Daedalus on Mar 22, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
(150 is not a typo - 30 teams makes it work out)
by Daedalus on Mar 22, 2009 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really, since they're playing either 19 or 20 other teams a year (thanks, Interleague play!)
It would still be unbalanced.
by Brendanukkah on Mar 22, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, on any given day there can be 15 games
do that on 150 days. it works out. for off days, you just have an even number of teams off. you just have to change the number of interleague games (and i am for a reduction in those – but not an elimination) and spread them out rather than having everyone play interleague at the same time.
i know it can work. and then we can do the whole seven game division series thing – maybe the loss of revenue for the sucky teams will be enough to actually make them try to win (i’m looking at you, pittsburgh.)
by Daedalus on Mar 22, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are plenty of records besides Barry's 73
Reverting back to a 154-game season just for the SS HR record seems like an overreaction to me. I understand that a lot of people are upset by steroid usage but I don’t think fans that have actually turned away from the game because of it will come back because Ruth’s 60 HRs is the new standard. Plus, a 154-game season would mean less revenue and would be difficult to manage with the unbalance schedule.
If the marketing choices are Barry or Ruth, I’ll go with Option C.
by ken on Mar 22, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
well done
Made from 100% recycled awesome,
by chandrathan on Mar 22, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with Option C.
But his name is Sean Casey, and he’s retired.
I agree that
reverting back to a 154-game season just for the SS HR record
would be an overreaction. But I was making the argument purely from a marketing perspective. There are good and bad things about the switch, such as the reduced revenue from the missing games (which could be made up, in part, due to shared revenue created by expanding the WC round to 7G instead of 5) and the unbalanced schedule issue (which Paul White of Baseball Weekly proposed solving by moving the Astros to the AL West, which would create a balanced schedule and balanced number of teams in each division – thusly switching interleague games from being held in 2 bunches to instead having 1 interleague game held each day, while finally giving the NL Central and AL West teams an equal chance to get into the playoffs).
As for players wanting to be close to their families – I believe we would lose few players from the WBC this way…perhaps fewer than were lost this year to their MLB teams for spring training.
It's all fun and games until someone gets herpes. - Fox 4 News
by PeteyHendrix on Mar 22, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lost revenue? Maybe.
The all-time MLB attendance record is 79,502,524. It was set in 2008.
The total capacity of all major league parks (as of this year) is 1,327,346.
This yields a total 154-game capacity of 204,411,284. More than 2.5 times the all-time attendance record.
Obviously, the Yankees draw more than the Pirates, but even the Yanks aren’t selling out every game. Their all-time attendance record of 4,090,696 could be set in 78.1 games at their new stadium (smaller than the old one).
I don’t know where I’d confirm this, but I have to guess that a lot of the people at any given game are fairly casual fans, there to see their one or two games a year. Most teams are still going to have more than enough room to accommodate all of those people. You can probably keep the cost of luxury boxes and truly prime season ticket seats the same, since those are typically bought for status, and then cut your more proletarian season ticket holders a break.
At “worst”, large market teams take a small hit. Oh noes….the Mets won’t have as much dough to throw at relief pitchers. Fine with me.
I don't want to hear any weak sh*t from Jason Grilli.
by cherub_daemon on Mar 22, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it would help level the playing field a bit
i’m ready to picket MLB corporate offices for the changes right now!
by Daedalus on Mar 22, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forget attendance
The real money comes from TV rights and sponsorships. That’s why the Yankees are profitable, even though they spend so much money. Less games on TV would be a big hit.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
by BubbaFan on Mar 22, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the reds only have 140 something games on anyway
they wouldn’t miss anything
by Daedalus on Mar 22, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what about radio?
If spring training radio broadcasts are a license to print money, regular season games must be even more profitable.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
by BubbaFan on Mar 23, 2009 7:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the schedule is already unbalanced
since there is a division with six teams and one with four.
by Daedalus on Mar 22, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
balls/strikes
Has anyone else been appalled at the umpire balls and strike calls in the WBC?
by Brian B on Mar 22, 2009 12:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
WBC
Hate to be a naysayer, but this WBC business is just another moneymaker that upsets the rhythm of spring training that will probably lead to more injuries during the season.
by Redsfanx on Mar 22, 2009 2:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sort of in reply to Redsfanx's comment, but mostly just addresses injuries and the WBC in general.
And interesting article, especially in perspective of the one that was on mlb.com about how the WBC is bad for pitchers.
Everybody's a jerk. You. Me. This jerk.
by andromache on Mar 22, 2009 2:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only one who thinks...
…that the lesser WBC teams from Netherlands, South Africa, Australia, China, etc. should barnstorm annually through the US and the other major baseball territories? They would get plenty of takers, I think, for exhibition games in and around the Dominican Winter League, Arizona Fall League, carrying into spring training in both FL and AZ? We’re all sick of playing the Pirates 26 times each spring. Plus, this might go a long way toward helping develop these players against stiffer competition.
It's all fun and games until someone gets herpes. - Fox 4 News
by PeteyHendrix on Mar 22, 2009 4:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
teams like those don't have the money to do so
esp with baseball not being an olympic sport. people don’t realize how much money teams lost because the govs no longer provide olympic funding to them. now, if MLB paid for it…
but a lot of those guys have day jobs and baseball is just a weekend thing. netherlands, for instance, only has forty something games in a season.
by Daedalus on Mar 22, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
